Not entirely true. I already gave you the example of eliminating a bottleneck on the BQE 30 years ago resulted in much more free flowing traffic without any increase in demand. And lowering capacity on a street may lower demand on that street but will have little affect on overall demand shifted to other slower corridors.

Yes, Anti-transit statements tend to be made to anti-transit advocates.

The people making those comments are transit users. Why would transit users be anti-transit advocates." What you said makes zero sense because in your mind anyone who believes SBS is not a great idea is an anti-transit advocate.

Me: Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.

Me: You: This has nothing to do with SBS.

It has everything to do with SBS and every other SBS comment I made that you don't agree with, you claim is irrelevant because you can't refute them.

Me: No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases.

You: Except it has done the reverse.

Me: It definitely has not.

Me: The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.

You: Actually that would be 1.5 million, but that is not a relevant number as you have been told time and time again. Ridership went way up after SBS conversion.

Me: Where is the PROOF it was only $1.5 million? I know you don't need proof. You claiming it makes it a fact.

Me: It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either.

You: SAS Cost BILLIONS!!! Does that mean it makes no sense? A few million is a small price to pay for creating a functional service.

Me: de Blasio's plan is 20 routes. We are talking at least a half billion in capital costs and about $60 million a year in additional operating costs for less and less riders each year on most SBS routes.

Me: Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.

You: Improved ridership, Improved reliability, Decreased Runtime.

Me: Less ridership, no significant change in reliability. SBS buses bunch just as much as regular routes even with exclusive lanes. YEs, decreased runtime because of reduced bus stops causing increased walks to bus stops. It stands to reason that reducing service (i.e. eliminating bus stops would decrease running times. IT'S AVERAGE TRIP TIMES THAT MATTER TO THE BUS RIDERS NOT BUS RUNNING TIMES WHICH ONLY MATTER TO THE MTA.

You: "It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."

Me: So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS.

You: Correct.

Me: If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.

You: Major logical fallacy.

Me: No fallacy in logic. We can safely conclude that you support a plan that most people in the area oppose. Since you don't believe that most people support the plan, the converse must be true that you believe most are opposed to the plan. The only other possibility is that you won't commit to an estimate if more are for or are against the plan even though available evidence shows among those who spoke out who live in the area, the vast majority are opposed to the plan.

You :Yes, because it is crazy. You are clearly a conspiracy theorist.

Me: As I already have stated, when you can't logically argue the points, you attack the speaker.

Me: So you are saying that they still didn't know how many parking spaces they would be eliminating until they actually eliminated them because they never even bothered counting them.

You: No.

Me: So what are you saying?

You: I am saying you are making unfounded accusations.

Me: So you are stating they did count the number of parking spaces they were removing but refusing to divulge that information three weeks before implementation when requested for that information by the Community Board, was proper.

You: If the question and questioner are absurd, There is nothing to be gained on their part. I believe they have correctly identified you in such a way. I believe that is why they do not respond to you.

Me: But your assumptions are incorrect. The questions were relevant and the questioner is someone regarded with great credibility. And your response does not explain why they would not respond to the Community Board with a proper response either. Are they not relevant also? Was the question they asked regarding the number of parking spaces to be removed not relevant also?